User talk:Martinvl

Hello, Martinvl! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Stwalkerster (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

WP:ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at [[1]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Alex79818 (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:A38DriverLocationSign_km415.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:A38DriverLocationSign_km415.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

DLS/coordinate lists for motorways

Hi. In the future, when including coordinate lists, can you use as many parameters of {{coord}} as possible, especially the "name" parameter? Otherwise, we get something like this. Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 14:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:DLS JunctionCarriagewayIds.png

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:DLS JunctionCarriagewayIds.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

UK motorway distances

Hi there. We appreciate the effort you are making on the UK motorway articles, good job. One request though. When you enter the distances, can you do so in miles rather than kilometres. The distance measurement on the UK roads is in miles so it should use the same units. Canterbury Tail talk 12:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Martin. I had the same problem with distances that towns were from other towns and cities in the UK. suggest you use the following code in your edits which will show the distance initially in miles and automatically convert it to Km's as well. Thus a distance of 3 miles gives.... 3 miles (4.8 km) -- [User has been removed from Wikipedia for having an offensive name] 20:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW The second user has been asked by Wikipedia to change his logon name, so my responses to his page are no longer available. Martinvl (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My response to both correspondents has been to point out that I am cataloguing the values that appear on Driver location signs. The Highways Agency has published the values for the M25. Otherwise I have obtained the numbers from draft of similar documents. By definition, such cataloguing of numbers is verifiable as one need only look at the location marker posts that appear in situ. I also pointed out that introducing miles onto the junction lists would add to the clutter and make them less user friendly. Martinvl (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of TOTSO

A tag has been placed on TOTSO, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 16:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The article was unanimously deleted at AFD only 3 months ago, like others have said. There hasn't been any improvement (no addition of reliable sources, etc.) so the TOTSO page ought to have been deleted. I userfied it, however, and it's located at User:Martinvl/TOTSO for your reference. If you wish to overturn an AFD deletion decision, the best place to take it is Deletion review (not simply recreating the page). Do note that people will probably not be willing to overturn the decision or relist at AFD unless you prove that it can be an encyclopedic and notable topic. JamieS93 18:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There are a few comments on User:Martinvl/TOTSO for you as well, and I just want to make sure you see them. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• The original article has been moved to User:Martinvl/TOTSO. There is no additional content in the history. In particular the article was never placed in any categories. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Re citation needed

This has been transferred to the Martinvl talk page from Dieter Simon's talk page

Dieter=, a few days ago you added a "facts" flag to the article Expressways. This was subsequently changed to a "Citation Needed" flag. I used Google Earth and within five muinutes I was able to verify the statement concerned. Do facts of this nature really need a citation? If so, where does one find these facts? Please be a little more careful when asking for citations. I have removed this flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 20:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Martinvl, I don't know about being careful asking for citations. Are you saying that all those editors adding references (in the "Reference" section) whenever they add any text are wasting their time, then? When in fact we are being exhorted to do exactly that? See Wikipedia:Verifiability. The sheer fact that it hasn't been done more often, and that at a flick we can obtain those facts from Google, is neither here nor there. An encyclopaedia creating text, should always cite its sources, not ask readers to go somewhere else to verify facts in order to believe what has been written. No, we should always source our statements, it is not a big deal, espececially if we know where to find these fact. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

When I have some time, I will revisit this entry and add a reference consisting of "This can be viewed using for example Google Earth. The coordinates are: East end - xxxx; West end - xxxx; Viewed dd-mmm-yyyy". Would this be appropriate, or do you think that teh citation should have some other format? Martinvl (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know, you can try and enter it the way you think. Though I have done editing for a number of years I have never come across it. Perhaps you can put a section into the Talk:Expressway page to see what others say for present and future purposes. Let me have a look and see if there is an external source I can find. Dieter Simon (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Copied to Martin's talk page. Dieter Simon (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Martin, there is an article on the E.C. Row Expressway and an external source cited in it: [2]. Shall I leave it to you? If you enter "E. C. Row Expressway" (with quotes) in Google or Yahoo! you'll find quite a few websites. Dieter Simon (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Martinvl, great job, your source works brilliantly. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Communication

Hi, Martin. When you commented on Wikipedia talk:Translation today here, you included namecalling and bad faith assumptions: ("Was this an act of vandalism?", "monolingual script kiddy"). Things like these can make the community less pleasant and discouraging to any user that comes across them.

Your use of the term "monolingual script kiddy" in your reply to Wavelength, to say a probability the reason their addition was changed is the user was one of those, was a violation of our policy against making personal attacks on other editors.

Also, your suggestion to Wavelength that the first thing they should do is check the userpage of the editor who removed or changed their addition (in this case, me), then undo that change, as a monolingual script kiddy vandalising'll probably never notice and change it back, broke our rules on assuming good faith of people who work on the project. In the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary, it's important to avoid jumping to accusations or assumptions of thoughtlessness, or searching for a reason to brush off any concerns raised. Instead, focus on the merits of the content, which stands on its own. These policies/guidelines, also known as WP:NPA and WP:AGF, are important core principles of the Wikipedia community.

I hope that the explanation above was clear to you. If not, I'd be happy to explain further, here. I'll watchlist your talkpage for a couple've days in case. Thanks, and happy editing. –Whitehorse1 01:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I notice you've replied there since. I'll continue any content-related discussion there.

←Okay, now replied to any content-oriented parts there. The same points above relate to your second—made before I posted here on your talkpage—reply. In general: be collegial, personal remarks even those the target doesn't see are undesirable; and, in the absence of clear evidence of ill intent, assume good faith. Be well. –Whitehorse1 02:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Relief of Ladysmith

Looking over the article again, I think you have a strong case for getting it renamed. Go ahead and propose it at WP:REQMOVE. Once complete, it may be worth turning the Relief of Ladysmith page into a list linking to all of the battles. Good luck! Ron2K (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Litre

Why not "much less common"? I challenge you to find a use of the dry quart that is less than fifty years old. There's no question that the US system is complicated and foolish, but there's no reason to leave the impression that it is more complicated than it is. We do use the ounce (volume) and the ounce (weight), which is confusing to the consumer, but there's only one pint, quart, and gallon in common use.

And, BTW, "less common" had been there through around 600 edits -- three and a half years -- since the "Rough conversions" section was added. I just added "much". . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If it is much less common, is it neccessary to include it in the article - we have an exact conversion anyway? Although I agree with yoy that the US system is foolish, but my understanding is that the dry quart and pint are very much part of their way of life than in the UK. I actually think that the reference to the dry quart should be removed compeltely, but given my pro-metric views, I restrained myself in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Martinvl (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought about that. From the point of view of a USA reader, the dry quart is absolutely irrelevant. Why not remove it and see if anyone squawks?. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 19:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

RaRa?

I left you a note. Groeten, Drmies (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal re Metric System (not "metrication"...)

MayFlowerNorth (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC) I see your points re deleting my additions. That said, i DO think that such a section would add considerably to the article, to help people grasp what the various prefixes actually mean, since it is an abstract concept which is difficult to handle for many people, and the current section really does nothing to help explain things at all (neither does the unnecessary article on "metric prefixes", i should add). Accordingly, if i made it much more "encyclopedic" in nature, would you leave it be?

-Ross Mayhew.

Hi User:MayFlowerNorth

One of my concerns is the degree of overlap between the two articles International System of Units and Metric system. As I see it, the former should concnetrate on the metric system (or rather SI) as it is today with a small amount of historic background, while the latter should concentrate on the evolution of the metric system. As such I would see no problem with a section showing how Mouton introduced prefixes and maybe discussing (rather than cataloging) prefixes as they developed between 1793 and 1960 (introduction of SI). Also, the two articles should cross-reference each other to guide readers between them. WHat are your feelings on the matter? Martinvl (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Moratorium?

Declaring it over? Justin talk 21:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Martinvl (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Like adding a metriculated table was not intentional? Justin talk 21:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I added some additional information that I believed was relevant. The addiitons were strictly inaccordance with the Wikpedia pillar WP:VERIFY. If you think it irrelevant, please say so on the article talk page. Martinvl (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Charles Rawden Maclean

Thanks for starting this article - I have been fascinated by his story since I first saw his grave in my local cemetery and have gradually been collecting a lot of info about him, with a view to starting an article shortly. I have recently ordered a copy of Stephen Gray's book to fill in more of the detail - I'll read it on my forthcoming holiday.

With this in mind, I have been adding links to various pertinent articles - ironically, the only relevant article where he is not mentioned is that for Durban. Perhaps that can be rectified in due course. Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I also intend to create an article about the John Ross which was named after him. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daemonic Kangaroo. Thank you for your message. My main interest in him was his connections with Durban. I stumbled across his name when I was updating the article Tugela River. (I used to live in in the town of Colenso which was on the banks of the river). In the next few days I intend to write the South African part and I am quite happy to leave you to write the rest. Martinvl (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for what you have done so far - I am a bit perplexed by the confusion over the date of birth as both the Friends of Old Southampton Cemetery and the Fraserburgh Heritage Centre are adamant about the 1815 date. I will probably email them and ask for their comments - is their any chance that you could email me copies of the pages in the books cited by you so I can pass these on to them? I have a recent photo of the grave, which I will upload to WP Commons and add to the article, and that for the cemetery.

By the way - do you live in Durban? My wife and I are planning to re-visit South Africa next year (we went to Pretoria, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town, via the Garden Coast, 4 years ago). What's the best time to come from a weather point of view? Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daemonic Kangaroo. Thank you for your note. I will get together the sources that I have and send what photocopies I can lay my hands on. BTW, I live in Fleet (other end of Hampshire), but I was at univeristy in Durban. Martinvl (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now received the biography written by Stephen Gray in 1992, in which he asserts that the coreect date of birth is 17 August 1815, which he has checked against the Fraserburgh parish records. He is rather dismissive of the works of both Ritter (which he describes as "fiction") and Bulpin. Rather than edit the article piecemeal, I would prefer to read the whole book and then summarise its contents. As I will be away for most of July, it will be several weeks before I can come back on this. Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daemonic Kangaroo. Are you happy to transfer this conversation to the Charles Rawden Maclean page (removing the personal bits)?

As regards visiting South Africa, the coastal areas are best during the South African summer (Oct to Apr), while the game parks (espl Kruger National Park are best during the South African winter (Apr to Oct). The northern part of the Kruger Park is closed during the South African summer. If you do plan to visit Kruger, book from the UK - you will get preferential treatment as you are bringing foreign currency into the country. Martinvl (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course, much of this should be on the article's talk pag. I'll leave you to decide what to include./not include. And thanks for the info on SA. I plan to retire next May/June, so October looks favourite. We did visit Kruger four years ago in July - it rained every day! But I'm looking forward to it already! Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Rawden Maclean

NW (Talk) 06:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Tugela River

Hi Martinvl, Please accept my apologies - I hadn't noticed that I'd already 'corrected' article in question - if I had i'd probably have twigged that it had been reverted. I hope I didn't cause any offence. I'll of course be more careful in future. Regards, TicketMan - Talk - contribs 12:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

WP South Africa welcome

Hi, Martinvl Welcome to WikiProject South Africa!

We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles relevant to South Africa. Here are some points that may be helpful: Our main aim is to help improve South Africa-related articles. Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it. You may also be interested in joining WikProject Africa, the parent project to WikiProject South Africa. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We hope you enjoy working on this project.

WP:OR

I removed your "statement" as it appears to be WP:OR, nothing to do with WP:FALKLANDSUNITS which I simply mentioned in passing as you appear to have edited deliberately in contradiction of it and WP:MOSNUM. Please stop with the drama and personal attacks. Justin talk 20:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC) [3] Added to the OR noticeboard, you are of course welcome to contribute. Justin talk 20:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Falklands Dates

I reverted your addition to the heading as the "Argentine" colonial effort was between 1828 and 1831, then for about a month in late 1832. Modern Argentina claims the period 1820-1833 but there are a number of problems with those claims. I suggest it is simply better to avoid the controversy that will ensue. Justin talk 07:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, point taken Martinvl (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you think you could wait awhile, I'm kind of busy right now? Why does it have to be now? Justin talk 10:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring, great, I try to collaborate and you wish to make everthing a battle. What exactly is your problem? Justin talk 11:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Justin, we are all busy - how long do you want me to wait and why? Martinvl (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm at work and the changes popped up on my watchlist, I just wanted time till this evening so I could answer your question and explain the different elements of the history. 6 hrs or so, that is all. Justin talk 11:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Falkland Islands

I think you may have meant the edit previous to mine? [4] Active Banana (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for any inconvenience - we both hit the vandalism within five minutes which is a good thing. Anyway it is sorted now. Martinvl (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

AMU reversion

Sorry, referring maybe I am being a bit tired/dense, where does it say that the preferred usage for large or small values is Dalton? It says it is "often used" sure, but the text is suggesting it is somehow preferred? (diff in question) User A1 (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The use of prefixes is referred for all SI units. (I am a part-time physics teacher so I come across this problem regularly).

Sorry, I think we are not quite on the same topic -- I am suggesting that the citation does not indicate that dalton is preferred over the AMU unit "u", which is the implication in the sentence. For example. what prevents someone from writing "ku" rather than "kDalton"User A1 (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right, the BIPM reference does not prefer one above the other. However it appears that the ISO reference (which was added by another editor) does. As this is the case, I think it best that this discussion be continued on the article's talk page. Martinvl (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have continued this over at Talk:Atomic mass unit User A1 (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

How is WP:RJL US-biased?

I would appreciate it to me if you could explain why you see WP:RJL as US-biased. You have offered little proof to back up your assertion. --Rschen7754 08:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I have made a proposal to include the UK in RJL at WT:RJL. --Rschen7754 00:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rschen7754. I saw your proposal. By and large it looks OK, but I think it best that somebody else form the UK groups has some input. If nobody else does, then it might well just end up being ignored.

I think that the real reason that the UK editors do not appear to be cooperating is that the promotes of the RJL have taken the US model as being the start point of discussions, rather than putting the US model and the UK model alongside each other and taking the common points as the start point. I get the feeling that earlier discussion have annoyed UK editors to the extent that they are just boycotting RJL discussions.

May I put one item into perspective. I have read a number of John Grisham books and I get the feeling that every US country has its court house and that the judges and politicians at county level have considerable power. The UK is much more centrally administered. I don't know the name of the chairman of our District Council (which serves a population of 80,000), not of our County Council (which serves a population of just under 1,000,000). You will probably find that this is true of most Brits (apart from Londoners where the mayor does have some power). This reflects our lack of interest in county boundaries. It also explains why we get hot under the collar whe we are told by outsiders what is important in our own country. Martinvl (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Are there any other active UK users currently? In response to your other points, WP:RJL (then WP:ELG) has been in force worldwide since around 2007, before the current UK model was developed. --Rschen7754 19:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There are a few, but as I have said, they have probably had enough of the RJL debate and are ignoring it. Martinvl (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well... it will probably be implemented then, if nobody from the UK objects. (Not that it's a huge change anyway, it just sets Wikipedia MOS guidelines and your own project consensus regarding miles and km into the guideline). --Rschen7754 20:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Martin, you're right to a degree about every county here having a courthouse and power-wielding judges. Anyway, do you have any objection to adding cities to junction lists? Last time around, I asked about it the logic was since some junctions were out in the middle of nowhere, and obviously wouldn't have a location, that no junctions should have a location. I, for one, would like to know where M1 and M25 intersect, not just that they meet at J6a on the M1. –Fredddie™ 21:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I see the need for localities in junction lists as being important - the UK concept of a "city" is different to the American concept - historically a "city" in the United Kingdom had a bishop. The UK roads group ensures that the only localities quoted on the junction lists are those that appear on the roads themselves which is why we have different lists for each direction.

BTW, I think that the M1 and M25 intersect in either the Watford or the Hertsmere district (I have not checked which). Does Hertsmere mean anything to you? Probably not. That is why we don't use district names on our junction lists. Martinvl (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Hertsmere doesn't mean anything to me, but I think you're missing the message here. When I'm looking at a junction list, I want to know where the junction is, not where the roads at the junction will take me. –Fredddie™ 22:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Freddie, you are missing the point. Large pasrts of England are divided up into counties. Hertfordshire is one such county. Counties are in turn divided up into Districts. Hertsmere is one such district. If you want things put into perspective, please visit ISO 3166-2:US (an area with which I believe you are familiar). Now visit ISO 3166-2:GB. See if you understand it! (BTW, Martinvl (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Before we confuse each other more than we already have, do we agree or disagree that ISO 3166-2:GB level localities should be in the junction lists? I think they should. –Fredddie™ 21:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem that much more complicated than British Columbia. --Rschen7754 21:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I live in the United Kingdom. Maybe it is just possible that I know more about my own country that do people who have never set foot here. I shall not be making any more comments regarding this topic on my home page.Martinvl (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Martinvl/Primary destinations

Hi, why has this page been created? Are you aware that it has been created in the main userspace? I did userfy it for you to User:Martinvl/Primary destinations because the page name contains your user name, which is why I marked the page for speedy deletion, however I notice you have since changed it back. Is this supposed to be in main space? -- role^player 13:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Air Rhodesia Flight 825

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Socatres2008. Thank you for your note. There was a dispute for which I apologised. The apology was accepted. Since the issue was resolved before the article was flagged, I think that the flag was unneccessary and should therefore be removed. Martinvl (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Disappointed that an experienced editor would do this in the first place, but fair enough. The ANI case is closed now too. Socrates2008 (Talk) 20:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Metric Calendar - opposition

The French Republican Calendar met a lot of opposition, and was eventually discarded. Tabletop (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I am fully aware of that. I am also aware of a site that gives it a good description and which converts betweeen the Gregorian Calendar and the French Revolutionary Calendar. I did a Y2K verification of that site. Having said that, woudl you please add references and not leave others to do so? Martinvl (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Banking edit on Economy of the Falkland Islands

I reverted a recent edit but only because it made no sense. I think you have some words missing. Do you want to fix it, I think you'll see what I mean when you re-read it. Justin talk 20:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Justin, I have rewritten the section. Martinvl (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Justin talk 22:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you Know

Hi, I've nominated an article you started, Thomas Fairfax (Gilling), for the "Did you know" section of the main page. See Template_talk:Did_you_know#Thomas_Fairfax_.28Walton.29_and_Thomas_Fairfax_.28Gilling.29. Do you have any thoughts about the article and another article about this person's father, which I started and which is also part of the nomination? --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi User:La comadreja. Thank you for your message. I started the article in rather a hurry in order to correct the error that the common ancestor of Prince William and Kate Middleton was General Sir Thomas Fairfax (who lived a century later). I will add my references today. However, I have no other knowledge of him. Regards Martinvl (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I found one pretty decent source online, which you would see if you get to the articles, and I don't know where the others would be. What references do you have in mind? --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Update

Anyway: The DYK reviewer said the articles needed other sources if they're going to appear on the main page. They probably need to be added soon if the nomination is going to pass. I don't know what they would be. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Space puzzle

I've seen this kind of edit before, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what purpose it serves. Can you explain? HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi User talk:HuskyHuskie.

This is a "no-breaking space" - it ensures that Wikipeida does not put a "new line" between the "200" and the "km". Martinvl (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow! That's so cool to know that. Thanks. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

UK & Aussie republicans

Howdy. I meant place the Australian PM's comments in with the UK Bishop's comments. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton

Howdy. Would you please restore the Broadbent comments to that article, as you didn't have a consensus to delete it? GoodDay (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Lets see what other editors think. As far as I am concerned Broadbent is a nobody who used offensive language. Martinvl (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Offensive language, so what? Wikipedia isn't suppose to be censured. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If disagreement continues over the intro, we could just mention he's the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

We should use what other authoritative sources say.

I have seen many report of "second in line to the throne" and "second in line to the British throne" while one report that has been syndicated to many countries around the world says "William, second in line to the throne of 16 realms, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand, is ..." Martinvl (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, plus it's alot better then 'second in line to Elizabeth II'. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Re the "th" issue, your edit and edit summary are at loggerheads. Ericoides (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

support

I removed on eof your comments, the sections are clearly for supports not comments, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I put it back, its a big mess, people supporting one and two and opposing, sill really. Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Martinvl, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Martinvl/LondonAmbulance. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation for Pound (mass)

Please provide a citation for your edit to Pound (mass). Please be aware that comments in an edit summary do not constitute a citation. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added some references - one of them itself has a reference to what appears to be a reputable book (which might be out of print). Martinvl (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

freeways

thanks Martinvl; actually that was me (latest merge proposer). I'm trying to push expressway to the lower grade of highway from freeway, rather than a lexical "roads called expressways" basis, which is as inappropriate as the present "roads called motorways" bent of Motorway. See WP:DICTNankai (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Martinvl, do you have access to an OECD definition similar to the Motorway one that would describe an expressway?Nankai (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nankai, I have only seen OECD definitions for motorways and for roads. These definitionsa re used for statistical purposes when comparing the economies of different countries. If you have too many definitions, it becomes difficult to compare like with like. In my view, I would define an expressway as being a road that fulfils one or more (alternatively two) of the criteria for a motorway - I haven't made up my mind which is the better cut-off point. Martinvl (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Stellenbosch to bid for Wikimania 2012!

Hi Martin!

The nascent South African Wikimedia chapter has decided to bid to host Wikimania in Stellenbosch, South Africa in 2012. This would be the first Wikimania in South Africa, and would be a great advertisement for our country. Please take a look at meta:Wikimania_2012/Bids/Stellenbosch. If you can add to the discussion, please do. If you feel that you are able to do anything to help, please join the Wikimedia South Africa mailing list and let us know. Even simple messages of support are valued!

Best regards,

David Richfield

Rollback and reviewer granted

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have also given you reviewer rights. See WP:REVIEWER and Help:Pending changes for more information. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Stone (mass) (disambiguation)

Thank you for fixing Stone (mass) (disambiguation). — Robert Greer (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

French units of measurement (to 1795)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of French units of measurement (to 1795), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: French units of measurement. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review on Falkland Islands

Appreciate the enthusiasm but shouldn't we wait for the peer review to focus our efforts. No objection to the changes, its just a review requires a stable article. Wee Curry Monster talk

OK, I will hold back. Martinvl (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Falkland Islanders

I think that as part of improving the Falkland Islands article we can take a good shot at expanding this article enough to reach a DYK. This would definitely make it easier improve the main Falkland Islands page after the information has been taken in, because it would be easier to see what was important. Thought I'd mention it as I was going to work on it, and saw you had made some recent edits to the page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chipmunkdavis

I did a little work so as to substantiate the summaries that I had in the main article. I was not planning to do very much more work apart from maybe using the census data. The census data suggests that the section on religion is oveplayed - the census figures showed "Christian" and "not specified/none" as being about 99% - other faiths accounted for about 1%. I also planned to get proper references for the Roman Catholic and Anglican hierarchy, but not much more. The other issue that I don't quite know how to handle is the number of contract workers on the island (at least that is what the census figures tell me) without doing OR. Martinvl (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It just seems like a good opportunity to get some good information placed on these articles. The religion section does seem strange and disproportionate, although no doubt more information about christianity would go a long way towards fixing that. Personally I want to do something about the language section, a short summary of the dialect. Might be worth adding a paragraph about history too. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Undone indentation of comments

I've just undone a change you made to my comments on Wikipedia talk: No original research since it represents a substantial alteration to my comments. The purpose of indentation is to show what is being responded to. If as here, both posts relate to a single previous comment then one following the other with the same indentation level is correct. By indenting my comments you alter them in to a response to SDY's comments rather than your comments. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. Martinvl (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

NOR

When people object to changes to core content policies, you can't keep reverting, Martin. What you've added makes no sense, and it can't stay as it is. I'd appreciate it if you'd revert yourself. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Slim Slim Virgin II.

I added two sections - the use of maps and the use of "reputable computer programs". The use of maps had been discussed, but I agree the use of "reputable computer programs" had not been discussed. I have removed the phrase regarding "reputable computer programs". When I originally made the change regarding the use of maps, a number of constructive comments were made and the phrasing also became unwieldy, hence my splitting the first sentence into two into what I believes clarifies the position. I invite yot to reread what is there.

Another reason that I reverted what you had written was that I had originally wanted to combine the section on routime calculations, but was explicitly asked by User:Kmhkmh not to do so as the Maths group were discussing that section. This is also a reason why I decline to revert. Martinvl (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Martinvl. You have new messages at Talk:Wedding of Prince William of Wales and Kate Middleton.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ADS query

Hi fellow wikipedian, My information was gathered personally and through my colleagues, the last two weeks of April we documented and recorded information from advanced direction signs, using photographs and data from the roadside. About 12 of us were involved in the project, and that is why I have worded the update phrase as I did, we all saw it fit for purpose. Also I am sorry if I have offended you by replacing your contributions but they were inaccurate I'm afraid. For those roads we couldn't go to we used various web resources and contacted people living in the area to help us and contribute their information for the pages. The information gathered was from the ADS on the road at the 1m, 1/2m and 0m signs (or 2/3m, 1/3m, 0m), so are up to date, however where signs were not visible either removed or damaged we used past sources to gather information. The Highways Agency also helped us with our contributions. Thatmotorwayguy (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

ADS

Hi, The information I contribute is 99% accurate, human error can account for 1%. I gather all my information from reliable and trusted sources, I gave up using the DfT and HA, their information sometimes lacks the 'accuracy'. DLS are everywhere nowadays and can be found now on Google Streetview, which would provide accurate information for you, just a suggestion there. Thatmotorwayguy (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

History of the metric system

Thank you for creating this interesting article. It is a shame you did not nominate it for front page exposure at T:TDYK (now it is too late for that). :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry, I forgot Excel only carries it out to 14 digits. It's 39.370078740157480314960629921259842519685039… (repeating 370078740157480314960629921259842519685039) --JimWae (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi JimWae

Thank you for your note. While you might be correct, the way in which I expressed the values is exactly correct, reflects the definitons and is quicker to enter on a calculator (unless the user is working to four decimal places, in which case he should use the values in the table). Martinvl (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Falkland Islands Article in Arbitration

Having briefly reviewed the article's discussion history, I've identified you as a potentially aggrieved editor whose contributions may have been negatively impacted by the actions of a group of editors who are alleged to be POV-pushing and engaging in WP:GAMES. I invite you to peruse the arbcom request and voice your opinion and experiences, at your leisure. The link is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WP:NPOV_and_WP:GAMES_in_.22Falkland_Islands.22_and_related_articles

Thank you.Alex79818 (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of maps in Wikipedia

re [5], thanks for taking this on. I started this guideline the last time this came up. I worked on this for a bit, but when interest waned I gave up and moved on. Nice to see some others chime in. This comes up every year or so, so it would be nice to at least have a guideline that we can use when this comes up. Dave (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Interesting though that we came in from a totally different angles - my thank to the editor who drew my attention to you article. I liked your observation of mass-transit maps. I trust that you are in agreement with my concept regarding the use of the same analysis technique in two different disciplines. Martinvl (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with in general with what's being discussed. I'm not sure I would have said maps should be treated the same as foreign language sources; however, aside from not liking the wording, I understand the point being made. Dave (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you think of alternative phrases? One that springs to mind is "Specialised notation" and liken it to a music score. I know nothing about music, but I am sure that there are certain concepts that anybody who can read a music score can picjk up immeadiately. Maps are the same. How happy are you about trying to work something about music scores (or anything else) into the article. I could get my daughter to assist - she has sung in the Halle Choir - the top English choir outside London. Martinvl (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

History of the Falkland Islands

Hi,

We were discussing how to fix that on the talk page. Please join in there. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

redirect repeated links

Hi, could you provide an example of your recent addition to MOSLINK? I'm unsure what it means. Tony (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tony - see my example in Zara Phillips. Martinvl (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Expressway redirect

Thanks for your recent assistance with the article Limited-access road. Please pop in to Talk:Limited-access road to discuss the redirect for Expressway Nankai (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverts

Your original text on the sovereignty dispute was more accurate, the 1955 case involving Argentina foundered as Argentina indicated it would not respect the result. I see no need to include Chile, as this appears to be widening the dispute over the Falkland Islands. Reason (A) for the revert. Switching the statement to Brisbane is also less accurate for a summary as it is Vernet who made the original claim of destruction of the settlement when he sought to gain compensation for his losses. I link the statement to Brisbane in History of the Falkland Islands, which is I believe the right place to do it. Reason (B).

I always give a reason for reverting, your habit of initiating revert wars without discussing per WP:BRD is generating unnecessary conflict and I do wish you would stop doing so. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Miss/Ms/Mrs Phillips

Hiya. I know that some "actual usage" occurs as you say, but technically and legally (and the Palace would agree) dictates that Miss is the style of a spinster and Mrs the automatic legal style of a married, divorced or widowed woman, regardless of their surname ✝DBD 17:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your note. How do you know that the Palace would agree, especially since she is the first memeber of the Royal family not to take her husband's name. We should either leave it as it is or wait for announcements to be made.

BTW, I see that you are a Hampshire Hog - I am one by adoption. Martinvl (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

File:WessexBankStatement.svg

Hello Martinvl, I've updated your SVG. I've included the :File:Wyvern of Wessex.svg. The IBAN code seems only in the preview overlong, but next time I would choose the font condensed. The background is semi transparent, is that right? Greeting -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 23:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Perhelion

Thank you for your note.

Yes, it was my intention to use a semi-transparent background. I also used the same font that appeared on my own bank statements. The Bank of Wessex is of course a fictitious bank as is the addressee. If you know anything about the legend of King Arthur, you will probably understand the fiction that I used. Martinvl (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm ok, you'll use the image for an article? -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 17:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

MOS

Hi,

The MOS is currently under discussion. Edit warring over drastic and unilateral changes will only get you blocked. — kwami (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kwami,

Thank you for your note.

I appreciate your concern - I have been trying to get this change done for some time, but edit-waring over dashes led to this article being locked. There was a discussion which is now somewhere in the archives. Part of the reasons for the change that I made is to overcome the problems related above.

BTW, I made a very similar change to the section on Units of Measure a few months ago which was well received.

Regards Martinvl (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing this and any others you've spotted. It was unintended and I reverted some too. I'm doing a huge run to fix massive overlinking of common units and some false positives got through my old process. I've updated the process and it shouldn't happen again. Thanks very much. Lightmouse (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help at the IoP workshop. MGJ (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Avogadro

Distinguish properly between Avogadro constant and Avogadro number --RGForbes (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Martin, thank you for helping at the Institute of Physics Wikipedia workshop. By being knowledgable, patient, and helpful, you helped Wikimedia UK create a very positive and professional impression. I hope you'll be involved in future Wikimedia UK events. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

M5 coordinates

As I think you know, there is no consensus one way or another in the RJL discussion. There clearly is no space consideration in the M5 table; and separate columns for coordinates is pretty much a de facto standard for tables, as a perusal of the following links demonstrates. I could point you to a couple of thousand more such tables, but you get the drift. Some members of highways projects may want to play silly buggers over this, but fortunately they do now own the articles in question. On wikipedia, we are about providing the best service for our readers. Our readers are not best served by providing partial information where the complete picture can be provided with nil downside. I trust you will reconsider you position, or else point me to settled policy or guidelines forbidding such information. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Arctic_Circle#Geography
• CIM-10_Bomarc#Operators
• LORAN#List_of_LORAN-C_transmitters
• List_of_islands_of_Michigan#Lake_Erie
• Panama_Canal#Layout
• Vandenberg_Air_Force_Base#Launch_sites
• South_Georgia_and_the_South_Sandwich_Islands#South_Sandwich_Islands_2
• List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_the_world#Tallest_structure_by_category
• River_Parrett#Route_and_points_of_interest
• Geography_of_Cuba#Extreme_points
• List_of_cities_in_Canada#Alberta
• Antarctic_Circle#Geography_and_demographics
• Splashdown_(spacecraft_landing)#Locations_of_splashdowns
• Box_Tunnel#Geographical_location
• List_of_abbeys_and_priories_in_England#Bedfordshire
• North_Walsham_&_Dilham_Canal#Locks_and_Watermills
• River_Avon_(Bristol)#Route_and_points_of_interest
• Bridgwater_and_Taunton_Canal#Route
• Manchester_Bolton_&_Bury_Canal#Locations_of_features
• Hells_Canyon#Points_of_interest
• List_of_tallest_structures_in_the_world#List_by_height
• 2010_FIFA_World_Cup#Venues
• Longwave#List_of_longwave_broadcasting_transmitters
• Coast_Mountains#High-prominence_peaks
• List_of_communities_in_the_Northwest_Territories#Communities_recognised_by_the_Government_of_the_Northwest_Territories
• Mackenzie_River#Tributaries
• A38_road#Notable_locations
• N1_road_(South_Africa)#Tolls

• That's great. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is no consensus for including a coordinates column, period, in MOS:RJL. No matter how you spin it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Neither is there any consensus for excluding a coordinates column, period, in MOS:RJL. No matter how you spin it. I refer you to the second paragraph of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Then clearly you haven't read the discussion on the talk page, where almost everyone except you and PigsontheWing has made it clear that they don't want a separate column. Showing us a list that is composed entirely of non-road articles, save for two in which the junction list is not the table in question, proves absolutely nothing. Multiple editors have spoken, but feel free to break WP:3RR. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's good of you to infer that I would wish to break 3RR. Your good faith overwhelms. I would rather you read para 2 of otherstuff, and also Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS#Precedent_in_usage, and explain why none of this affects road junction lists. There is - to my perception - a long history of your side ducking all discussion and insisting that no consensus means no consensus to do stuff you don't want done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The debate continues on WP:RJL. Martinvl (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Etiquette regarding extension of discussion onto policy pages

It would have been appropriate to inform talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom of your proposal at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Polls and surveys.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Unacceptable accusations

These accusations that you put on my talk page are unjustified. Your behaviour is becoming disruptive. Please calm down and go back to the articles you mention and try to justify your misleading contributions. Your metrication POV-pushing agenda has become all too apparent across a number of associated articles recently and your rude and inflammatory reactions to my toning-down of your attempts is becoming intolerable. We have made some constructive process on some articles; please try to assume good faith and we may be able to resolve the issues with some of the other articles in question. -- de Facto (talk). 15:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) I disagree. A brief glance through your contributions for the past few months show that while you are intently devoted to metric/imperial things, especially in Britain, you have also recently jumped ship into three articles that you don't have a history of editing which Martinvl does, seemingly to instigate.[6][7][8] In most cases you have made incorrect assumptions and just gone through cutting apart articles of which you have no real understanding. Please stop, or I will happily back Martinvl at his ANI thread. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If you had done your research more thoroughly you'd have seen the trail from Metrication in the United Kingdom through Driver location signs to both Kilometre and Milestone. That path was taken to attempt to correct the misrepresentations being perpetrated. A quick reading of my edit comments and/or any associated talkpage discussion at each stage will quickly confirm that. Your time would be better spent checking the record of this poster amongst the metric/imperial related articles and seeing if you can spot the trait that has lead us here. -- de Facto (talk). 16:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Introduction to the metric system

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Introduction to the metric system. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Metric system. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Metric system - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. AstroCog (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of M1 motorway junction list

The article M1 motorway junction list has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

you want user reaction? Utterly redundant.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of M1 motorway junction list for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article M1 motorway junction list is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M1 motorway junction list until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Metric system

Your introduction will stand a much better chance of survival if you create it at Portal:Metric system. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:M1 motorway junction list

Template:M1 motorway junction list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Imzadi 1979 → 22:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

More unacceptable behaviour by you in Metrication in the United Kingdom

Martinvl, you are pushing the limits of our tolerance of your behaviour in this article. Earlier, despite the matter of the Which?/Asda content being the subject of ongoing discussions, both in the article and on a couple of noticeboards - in which your interpretation of the material has been rejected - you made an inflammatory edit reverting that content and shoe-horning your POV of the material into the article. In that edit you also introduced other non-NPOV changes of wording to another section. I later removed an unsourced sentence from the lead of the article which asserted that children were not being tought how to manipulate imperial units, which you immediately reverted with the pointed and infammatory edit comment: "Reverted as per WP:POINT". Please try and cooperate with other editors on this article and assume good faith, and try not to antagonise others by the use of intolerant language in edit summary wording and by personalising disagreements by throwing around unsubstantiated accusations and intimidatory threats of disciplinary action on talk pages. -- de Facto (talk). 16:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Be my guest and lodge a formal complaint! Martinvl (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

3RR warning

You are now on 5RR at Metrication in the United Kingdom. Please stop edit warring or you may be reported and blocked. Pfainuk talk 22:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reported you at WP:ANI/3RR for your sixth revert in 24 hours.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hey Martinvl, thanks for all of your efforts to help Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it seems that some other editors have a difference of opinion in this case - I would ask that you stop reverting their reverts, and instead go over to the article's talk page to discuss the changes with them. Please also take a look at this policy and make sure that you don't continue edit warring. Thanks, and have a great day. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible block at Metrication in the United Kingdom

Hello Martinvl. It seems that you've been steadily reverting against other editors since October 6, and there is no evidence of any consensus on the talk page in favor of your changes. If you will promise to stop warring on this article, you may be able to avoid sanctions. I urge you to respond at WP:AN3#User:Martinvl reported by User:VsevolodKrolikov (Result: ) and agree to wait for a talk page consensus before reverting again. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Metrication in the United Kingdom. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=See below}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Martinvl reported by User:VsevolodKrolikov (Result: 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Martinvl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Firstly, the administrator concerned ignored a reasonable procedural request and secondly that no notice was taken of other parties who were undermining the integrity of Wikipedia by pushing WP:POV via persistent misrepresentation of a WP:RS. I have requested that the block be put on hold while mandatory mediation between the reporter, User:DeFacto and myself takes place. Full details below (User:Martinvl#Unblock request)

Decline reason:

You were appropriately warned about WP:3RR, yet continued. The block is well-founded, and necessary to protect the project from the hazards of edit-wars. There are very very few exceptions to the 3RR policy, and you were already advised this was not one of them. This extremely brief block gives you the opportunity to read the related policies: WP:EW, WP:3RR, and most especially WP:DR. While blocked, prepare your "case" for WP:DR. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I wish to appeal against this blockage on the following grounds:

1. The placing of a block weas premature because no notice was taken by the administrators of my request entitled Procedural Request by Martinvl to Administrators and in particular the phrase I await guidance from the administrators as to how they wish to proceed.
2. The placing of a block on me and not on other editors invovled was unjustified because no notice was taken of WP:POV pushing by the persistent misrepresentation of the content of a WP:RS is by the reporter and more especially by by User:DeFacto (who has also been WP:HOUNDing me and provoking me by WP:POINT). This situation was not helped by the actions of USER:Pfainuk who was [[WP:GAME]ing the system to score points off User:Michael Glass in the same artcile at the same time time and who decided to score some points off me at the same time. PfainUK has in the past used WP:GAME and WP:SYN to promote his own POV, provoking both Michael Glass and myself. Had the adminstrators not ignored my procedural request, I would have laid the above allegations out in more detail.

Since I am effectively alleging that the reporter and DeFcto are undermining the integrity of Wikipedia, I request that:

1. My blockage be put on hold.
2. My allegations regarding POV by persistent misrepresentation of the content of a RS be submitted for compulsory mediation.
3. Once the mediators have reported back, my reverts be reassessed in the light of the conduct of other editors who were invovled. Martinvl (talk) 09:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I am an admin, but I'm not acting as one here, just giving advice and making comments. First of all, you want to use the {{unblock}} template as that will get your request actually noticed. Secondly... it seems that the blocking admin was being quite generous here. 3RR is there for a reason - there's no point in constantly reverting, and it's disruptive. You stop and discuss before you keep revert warring. Now, should other editors have been blocked, I don't know, I haven't looked into their edits.

Also, a 3RR block isn't a "Wikipedia death sentence" - look at my block log. Granted, due to the specific circumstances I might have been able to successfully appeal that block, but I didn't and it's there. Oh well. It doesn't affect me or my editing today. --Rschen7754 09:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)